Case Digest (G.R. No. 160132)
Facts:
Serafin, Raul, Nenita, Nazareto, Neolanda, all surnamed Naranja, Amelia Naranja-Rubinos, Nilda Naranja-Limana, and Naida Naranja-Gicano, Petitioners v. Court of Appeals, Lucilia P. Belardo, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Rebecca Cordero, and the Local Register of Deeds, Bacolod City, G.R. No. 160132, April 17, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Roque Naranja was the registered owner of Lot No. 4 (TCT No. T-18764, 136 sq. m.) and a one‑third co‑owner of adjacent Lot No. 2 (TCT No. T-18762) which he held with his brothers Gabino and Placido. When Placido died, his one‑third share passed to his children — petitioners Nenita, Nazareto, Nilda, Naida, and Neolanda Naranja. Gabino later died leaving children who are also petitioners Serafin, Raul, and Amelia Naranja‑Rubinos.
From 1962 to 1992 the two lots were leased to Esso Standard Eastern, Inc.; Roque received P200 monthly. In August 1981 Roque, then single and living with his half‑sister Lucilia P. Belardo, executed a notarized Deed of Sale conveying Lot No. 4 and his one‑third share in Lot No. 2 to Belardo for P10,000. He delivered his copies of the TCTs to Atty. Eugenio Sanicas for registration, but Belardo did not immediately register the sale for lack of funds to pay registration fees.
Because Belardo borrowed from a neighbor, Margarita Dema‑ala, who eventually required security, on November 19, 1983 Roque executed another deed of sale in favor of Dema‑ala covering the two properties as security for an outstanding and additional loan (P30,000 total); Belardo was a witness. Roque died on December 2, 1983. In 1985 Belardo paid Dema‑ala and recovered the certificates of title, which she returned to Atty. Sanicas.
Unknown to Belardo, petitioners executed an Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs on October 11, 1985 adjudicating Lot No. 4 among themselves. With custody of Roque’s copy of TCT No. T‑18764, petitioners had it cancelled and caused issuance of a new title, TCT No. T‑140184, in their names in 1986. Belardo later petitioned the RTC to have her 1981 Deed of Sale annotated even without the TCTs; the RTC ordered annotation and she succeeded in registering the deed only on TCT No. T‑18762 because TCT No. T‑18764 had been cancelled.
Belardo (through her daughter and attorney‑in‑fact Rebecca Cordero) filed Civil Case No. 7144 (reconveyance with damages) on June 23, 1992 seeking declaration of ownership and cancellation of the extrajudicial settlement and TCT No. T‑140184. Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 7214 (annulment of sale and quieting of title) seeking nullification of the 1981 Deed of Sale and cancellation of its annotation on TCT No. T‑18762. The RTC consolidated and, on March 5, 1997, rendered judgment for petitioners: it found the 1981 Deed of Sale defective in form (no technical description) and invalid, declared it null and void, ordered cancellation of the annotation on TCT No. T‑18762, and dismissed Belardo’s case.
On September 13, 2002 the Court of Appeals reversed. The CA held that lack of registration does not invalidate an otherwise valid sale; registration binds third persons but does not affect ownership between vendor and vendee. Finding no proof vitiating Roque’s consent, the CA declared the extrajudicial settlement and the title T‑140184 void and reinstated T‑18764, declaring Belardo sole owner of Lot No. 4 and one‑third of Lot No. 2; it dismissed Civil Case No. 7214 for lack of cause of action. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on September 24, 2003.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with this Court (Rul...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Deed of Sale of August 21, 1981 invalid for failing to comply with Section 127 of Act No. 496 (i.e., for lacking a technical description)?
- Was the Deed of Sale voidable or otherwise vitiated for lack of consent, absence of consideration, or notarization irregularities such that petitioners may dis...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)